Matter of Thomas v. Martuscello
Docket 165 TP 25-01499
Court of record · Indexed in NoticeRegistry archive · AI-enriched for research
- Filed
- Jurisdiction
- New York
- Court
- Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
- Type
- Opinion
- Case type
- Habeas Corpus
- Disposition
- Affirmed
- Citation
- 2026 NY Slip Op 02528
- Docket
- 165 TP 25-01499
Review of a determination following a tier III prison disciplinary hearing pursuant to CPLR article 78 transferred from Supreme Court, Wyoming County.
Summary
The Appellate Division, Fourth Department, denied a CPLR article 78 petition by Leon Thomas challenging a prison disciplinary determination after a tier III hearing. The court confirmed the determination that Thomas violated certain incarcerated individual rules, noting Thomas pleaded guilty to two violations which barred review of the substantial-evidence claim as to those offenses, and it rejected his remaining challenges. The petition was dismissed and the determination confirmed without costs.
Issues Decided
- Whether the disciplinary determination finding violations of incarcerated individual rules 104.13 and 106.10 was supported by substantial evidence
- Whether petitioner's guilty pleas to two violations preclude appellate review of the substantial-evidence challenge
- Whether any remaining contentions after the guilty pleas require reversal of the determination
Court's Reasoning
The court held that petitioner's guilty pleas to the cited violations preclude review of his claim that those particular findings lacked substantial evidence, citing Fourth Department precedent. The court reviewed the remaining arguments and found none that would alter the outcome, so the determination stands. Because the plea bars review and no other issue warranted relief, the court confirmed the disciplinary determination.
Authorities Cited
- Matter of Caballero v Annucci187 AD3d 1671 (4th Dept 2020)
- Matter of Ingram v Annucci151 AD3d 1778 (4th Dept 2017), lv denied 30 NY3d 904 (2017)
- Matter of Williams v Annucci133 AD3d 1362 (4th Dept 2015)
Parties
- Petitioner
- Leon Thomas
- Respondent
- Daniel F. Martuscello, III, Acting Commissioner, New York State Department of Corrections and Community Supervision
- Attorney
- Wyoming County-Attica Legal Aid Bureau (Leah R. Nowotarski of counsel)
- Attorney
- Letitia James, Attorney General (Kate H. Nepveu of counsel)
- Judge
- Ann Dillon Flynn
Key Dates
- Decision date
- 2026-04-24
- Order transferring proceeding to Appellate Division
- 2025-08-27
What You Should Do Next
- 1
Consult counsel about further review
If the petitioner wishes to seek further review, he should consult an attorney promptly to evaluate whether to seek leave to appeal to the Court of Appeals and to identify any preserved legal issues.
- 2
Comply with disciplinary consequences
The petitioner should confirm and comply with any sanctions or administrative consequences imposed by the disciplinary determination while exploring legal options.
Frequently Asked Questions
- What did the court decide?
- The court confirmed the prison disciplinary finding against Leon Thomas and dismissed his CPLR article 78 petition.
- Why couldn't the court review some of Thomas's arguments?
- Thomas pleaded guilty to two of the violations, and under existing precedent a guilty plea to disciplinary charges prevents appellate review of challenges to the sufficiency of the evidence for those violations.
- Who is affected by this decision?
- Leon Thomas is directly affected because the disciplinary determination against him was upheld; the decision also reaffirms the appellate practice regarding guilty pleas in prison disciplinary cases.
- Can Thomas appeal further?
- The Appellate Division's decision disposed of the article 78 petition; further review would require seeking leave to appeal to a higher court, but prospects depend on preservation of issues and applicable standards.
The above suggestions and answers are AI-generated for informational purposes only. They may contain errors. NoticeRegistry assumes no responsibility for their accuracy. Consult a qualified attorney before relying on them.
Full Filing Text
Matter of Thomas v Martuscello - 2026 NY Slip Op 02528 Matter of Thomas v Martuscello 2026 NY Slip Op 02528 April 24, 2026 Appellate Division, Fourth Department IN THE MATTER OF LEON THOMAS, PETITIONER, v DANIEL F. MARTUSCELLO, III, ACTING COMMISSIONER, NEW YORK STATE DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS AND COMMUNITY SUPERVISION, RESPONDENT. Supreme Court of the State of New York, Appellate Division, Fourth Judicial Department Decided on April 24, 2026 165 TP 25-01499 Present: Bannister, J.P., Montour, Greenwood, Nowak, And Hannah, JJ. WYOMING COUNTY-ATTICA LEGAL AID BUREAU, WARSAW (LEAH R. NOWOTARSKI OF COUNSEL), FOR PETITIONER. LETITIA JAMES, ATTORNEY GENERAL, ALBANY (KATE H. NEPVEU OF COUNSEL), FOR RESPONDENT. Proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 (transferred to the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the Fourth Judicial Department by order of the Supreme Court, Wyoming County [Donald G. O'Geen, A.J.], entered August 27, 2025) to review a determination of respondent. The determination found after a tier III hearing that petitioner had violated various incarcerated individual rules. It is hereby ORDERED that the determination is unanimously confirmed without costs and the petition is dismissed. Memorandum: Petitioner commenced this CPLR article 78 proceeding seeking to annul a determination, following a tier III hearing, that he violated several incarcerated individual rules. To the extent that petitioner contends that the determination finding that he violated incarcerated individual rules 104.13 (7 NYCRR 270.2 [B] [5] [iv] [creating a disturbance]) and 106.10 (7 NYCRR 270.2 [B] [7] [i] [refusing a direct order]) is not supported by substantial evidence, we note that "his plea of guilty to those violations precludes our review of his contention" ( Matter of Caballero v Annucci , 187 AD3d 1671, 1672 [4th Dept 2020]; see Matter of Ingram v Annucci , 151 AD3d 1778, 1778 [4th Dept 2017], lv denied 30 NY3d 904 [2017]; Matter of Williams v Annucci , 133 AD3d 1362, 1363 [4th Dept 2015]). We have reviewed petitioner's remaining contention and conclude that it does not require a different result. Entered: April 24, 2026 Ann Dillon Flynn